OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare the psychometric, clinical sensibility, and pain-specific properties of leg ulcer pain assessment tools for use as a guide for clinicians and researchers. DESIGN: Pain assessment tools were selected for appraisal based on 4 inclusion criteria: (1) designed specifically to measure either quality and/or intensity of pain, (2) used in at least 2 different diseases and/or pain-inducing interventions in adults, (3) generic, and (4) patient self-reporting. The tools were appraised against psychometric properties, clinical sensibility attributes, and pain-specific issues. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. Then the first 2 reviewers independently assessed the selected tools using the predetermined appraisal criteria. RESULTS: Of 54 identified pain assessment tools, 5 (the pain ruler, the numerical rating scale, the visual analogue scale, the verbal descriptor scale, and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire) met the inclusion criteria. Each tool met the appraisal criteria to varying degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pain assessment tool to measure leg ulcer pain is recommended. Clinicians must decide independently which factors are most important when selecting a tool. Although a specific pain assessment approach cannot yet be recommended, a 2-step pain assessment process is most practical. To optimize pain management, further study is needed to ensure that leg ulcer pain is accurately and reliably assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare the psychometric, clinical sensibility, and pain-specific properties of leg ulcer pain assessment tools for use as a guide for clinicians and researchers. DESIGN:Pain assessment tools were selected for appraisal based on 4 inclusion criteria: (1) designed specifically to measure either quality and/or intensity of pain, (2) used in at least 2 different diseases and/or pain-inducing interventions in adults, (3) generic, and (4) patient self-reporting. The tools were appraised against psychometric properties, clinical sensibility attributes, and pain-specific issues. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. Then the first 2 reviewers independently assessed the selected tools using the predetermined appraisal criteria. RESULTS: Of 54 identified pain assessment tools, 5 (the pain ruler, the numerical rating scale, the visual analogue scale, the verbal descriptor scale, and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire) met the inclusion criteria. Each tool met the appraisal criteria to varying degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pain assessment tool to measure leg ulcer pain is recommended. Clinicians must decide independently which factors are most important when selecting a tool. Although a specific pain assessment approach cannot yet be recommended, a 2-step pain assessment process is most practical. To optimize pain management, further study is needed to ensure that leg ulcer pain is accurately and reliably assessed.
Authors: Mark Wallace; Barbara Evans; Sandra Woods; Robin Mogg; Lei Zhang; Adam C Finnefrock; Dietmar Rabussay; Michael Fons; John Mallee; Devan Mehrotra; Florian Schödel; Luwy Musey Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Nils Schaffner; Gerd Folkers; Silvia Käppeli; Markus Musholt; Günther F L Hofbauer; Victor Candia Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Margaret B Harrison; Ian D Graham; Karen Lorimer; Elizabeth Vandenkerkhof; Maureen Buchanan; Phil S Wells; Tim Brandys; Tadeusz Pierscianowski Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 2.655